forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

Felonious Monk said:
View attachment 251388

On a pair of twos when the dealer is showing an ace.
Click to expand...


Look at his brilliant suggestions...

1. "Figure out a way to squeeze more from ESPN" - sure. So simple. We have a guy who likes to tell us how "irrevocable" the GOR is, but then he has the gall to suggest "figure out a way to squeeze more from ESPN" as if obligors to contracts routinely hand out tens of millions of extra dollars more than they are already obligated to pay. Setting aside the fact that ESPN/ABC/Disney is cash-strapped and looking for equity investors for the TV side of the operations, you still have Mr. "I Do Assignments" making it sound like a contract with 13 years left to run will just gratuitously be changed by the payor in order to give us more money...for nothing...and chicks for free...

2. Go to unequal distributions - yeah, right. Easy-peasy. Since the deficit between what Miami and F$U and Clemson get paid (compared to Big 10 and SEC) is 25-30 million and climbing, and because the ACC receives payouts from ESPN in the 30+ mllion range, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS GET HALF OF THE ACC TO AGREE TO TAKE LESS THAN 10 MILLION APIECE, WHILE ALLOWING THE GOOD SCHOOLS TO DOUBLE THEIR PAYOUTS. Yes, that should work wonders. Why didn't anyone think of this earlier? "Go to unequal distributions". I think this guy is onto something here...or at least ON SOMETHING...

3. Kick out Wake - because, really, this is the ONLY thing that keeps the ACC's revenue so low. That darn darned Wake...because AS SOON AS THE ACC BOOTS ONE OF ITS SIX REMAINING CHARTER MEMBERS, then ESPN will immediately give us $25M extra per remaining school...oh wait, but then what if the SEC kicks out Vanderbilt? And what if the Big 10 kicks out Northwestern. WHOOPS! I guess the "Boot Wake" idea isn't quite as good as this oversimplifier made it out to sound....
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Andrea Adelson doesn't "know" **** for certain. All she does is LIST Miami's name, she never even reports on anything that "Miami" said or any position that "Miami" advocated.

"What was certain was there were votes in favor of expansion..." A vote was not taken. Miami does not support expansion as a means of saving, or trying to save, the ACC, unless the GOR is terminated and all schools allowed to consider leaving the conference without a GOR "penalty".

I'd like to see all of the non-Adelson reporting which states that Miami voted in favor of Stanford-Cal. I'll wait.

What HAS been stated, on more than one occasion, is that there are schools that have had differences of opinion between the university president and the AD, at least in expressions of the position of the university that they both represent. I do not know if this is the case with Frenk, but given the extent to which he had to delegate TRUE decision-making to Joe and Rudy, I could envision a scenario on a conference call where doddering Frenk would be confused enough to NOT fully comprehend how a sentence such as "I like Stanford and Cal" can be misconstrued and/or run counter to the official legal position that guys like Dan and Joe and Rudy understand.

As the great Milton Berle was once told before a ****-measuring contest, "Only pull out enough to win, Uncle Miltie." It will be funny to watch everyone try to lobby NC State to change its vote, only to fall short again.

And it's funny to watch certain "journalists" act like Stanford-Cal are "only one vote away from ACC membership", while the sportswriters who seem to know the most say that there are "significant barriers" and have expressed pessimism in Stanford-Cal ever being invited to join the ACC.

It was a 3-day ACC meeting. It adjourned without taking a vote. If there was any sort of chance here, you would think that the meeting would have gone on for as long as it would take to convince the "one holdout" needed to flip the vote.

Hilarious.
Click to expand...

FWIW, Pat Forde wrote on SI.com that when it came to adding Stanford and Cal, “four schools stood opposed when the issue was discussed Wednesday night, sources say: FSU, Clemson, UNC, and NC State.” ESPN isn’t the only outlet reporting it.
 
NorthernVirginiaCane said:
Well, I really doubt it's a simple majority. That's not how these associations work. It's a super majority to amend and I think likely that to dissolve. Never seen any good reporting either way.

And I don't see any ACC schools voting to dissolve unless they have an ironclad invite from the SEC or Big Ten, and 11 invites seems unlikely. We will see.

No ACC school is leaving for the Big 12. The ACC money is 33% higher now. It would be about the same if FSU/Clemson leave but then you add $240 mm in exit fees to split 12 ways. Plus academics matter to the ACC presidents and they aren't going there. The ACC minus fsu/Clemson is still better than the big 12.

My guess is instead Stanford and Cal end up in the ACC soon. espn wants the ACC to survive and needs late night programming now that the Pac is dead, Stanford can afford a partial share and this can be done in a way to begin the movement towards inequal distributions. This is just my speculation, but it's too good of a school and too good of a market to not happen. 7 of the top academic 30 schools matter to the ACC presidents more than anything else.

So yeah, I think most of you have wasted the summer getting excited over something that had a zero percent chance of happening.
Click to expand...
I need to refer to this as the Dystopian View of UM’s Conference Plight.

We cannot be left to rot in that barren, God-forsaken ACC wasteland. Somebody please tell me it will be ok!?
 
Advertisement
ItsMeD said:
Sorry to interrupt the back and forth mudslinging, but that is a terrible conference.
Click to expand...
It is terrible, but it would be far and away the best non power conference.

I don’t see Stanford joining that conference. I think they eventually end up in the BIG
 
NorthernVirginiaCane said:
Well, I really doubt it's a simple majority. That's not how these associations work. It's a super majority to amend and I think likely that to dissolve. Never seen any good reporting either way.

And I don't see any ACC schools voting to dissolve unless they have an ironclad invite from the SEC or Big Ten, and 11 invites seems unlikely. We will see.

No ACC school is leaving for the Big 12. The ACC money is 33% higher now. It would be about the same if FSU/Clemson leave but then you add $240 mm in exit fees to split 12 ways. Plus academics matter to the ACC presidents and they aren't going there. The ACC minus fsu/Clemson is still better than the big 12.

My guess is instead Stanford and Cal end up in the ACC soon. espn wants the ACC to survive and needs late night programming now that the Pac is dead, Stanford can afford a partial share and this can be done in a way to begin the movement towards inequal distributions. This is just my speculation, but it's too good of a school and too good of a market to not happen. 7 of the top academic 30 schools matter to the ACC presidents more than anything else.

So yeah, I think most of you have wasted the summer getting excited over something that had a zero percent chance of happening.
Click to expand...


Brilliant.

You "really doubt" it's a simple majority. Even though that is the state of NC law on the matter. Even though the Constitution DOES specify a super-majority for new membership, but does NOT do so for a vote to dissolve.

"That's not how these associations work". Yeah, it actually is.

"It's a super majority to amend and I think likely that to dissolve". Show your evidence.

"Never seen any good reporting either way". More dopiness. If a contract is silent as to a term, you look to state law and precedent. What "good reporting" do you need to acknowledge that there is NOT a super-majority required to dissolve the association? I mean, besides your "doubt" and "thoughts".

I do think it's amazing that you cite "the ACC money...now". How cute. And then you act like it would be "about the same if F$U Clemson leave". Yeah? On what planet? It was one thing when Nebraska/Mizzou left the Big 12, but it's quite different when the two best teams (Texas/Oklahoma) leave. Nobody is going to pay the Big 12 "Texas/Oklahoma" money when Texas/Oklahoma are in the SEC. Same thing with F$U/Clemson.

Exit fees. Hilarious. Soooo...getting LESS THAN 10 MILLION per school (on a one-time basis) is going to fix a $25-30M ANNUAL shortfall (compared to Power 2 schools) that is expected to grow even more over the life of the upcoming contracts? Sure, makes a helluva lot of sense. We'll be able to put $18 million of one-time band-aids on a $25-30M annual deficit. Brilliant.

ESPN "needs late night programming"? What, off of TWO teams? Give it a rest, you have veered into the "making stuff up" category now. At least you acknowlege that your garbage post is "guess" and "speculation".

Yes, the ACC is going to put "academics" over money. Just like the Big 10 is doing, by prioritizing two non-AAU schools as their 1A/1B choices in the southeast. ******* hilarious.

Now...don't go changing your username in the next few months. I'm going to be curious to see what new nonsense you invent then.

But, yeah...a dozen ACC schools are going to accept a 13-year slow death-sentence from growing revenue shortfalls that START at $25-30M per year.

Because "GOR".

And because "academics".

Because "super majority".

Because "IRREVOCABLE".

Yep, I'm sure you will be proven right in 2036.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Look at his brilliant suggestions...

1. "Figure out a way to squeeze more from ESPN" - sure. So simple. We have a guy who likes to tell us how "irrevocable" the GOR is, but then he has the gall to suggest "figure out a way to squeeze more from ESPN" as if obligors to contracts routinely hand out tens of millions of extra dollars more than they are already obligated to pay. Setting aside the fact that ESPN/ABC/Disney is cash-strapped and looking for equity investors for the TV side of the operations, you still have Mr. "I Do Assignments" making it sound like a contract with 13 years left to run will just gratuitously be changed by the payor in order to give us more money...for nothing...and chicks for free...

2. Go to unequal distributions - yeah, right. Easy-peasy. Since the deficit between what Miami and F$U and Clemson get paid (compared to Big 10 and SEC) is 25-30 million and climbing, and because the ACC receives payouts from ESPN in the 30+ mllion range, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS GET HALF OF THE ACC TO AGREE TO TAKE LESS THAN 10 MILLION APIECE, WHILE ALLOWING THE GOOD SCHOOLS TO DOUBLE THEIR PAYOUTS. Yes, that should work wonders. Why didn't anyone think of this earlier? "Go to unequal distributions". I think this guy is onto something here...or at least ON SOMETHING...

3. Kick out Wake - because, really, this is the ONLY thing that keeps the ACC's revenue so low. That darn darned Wake...because AS SOON AS THE ACC BOOTS ONE OF ITS SIX REMAINING CHARTER MEMBERS, then ESPN will immediately give us $25M extra per remaining school...oh wait, but then what if the SEC kicks out Vanderbilt? And what if the Big 10 kicks out Northwestern. WHOOPS! I guess the "Boot Wake" idea isn't quite as good as this oversimplifier made it out to sound....
Click to expand...

Can you change the sky color from blue to green and orange while you’re accomplishing all those other things
 
Advertisement
camber_2374 said:
FWIW, Pat Forde wrote on SI.com that when it came to adding Stanford and Cal, “four schools stood opposed when the issue was discussed Wednesday night, sources say: FSU, Clemson, UNC, and NC State.” ESPN isn’t the only outlet reporting it.
Click to expand...


I have a question. Do you understand the English language? Do you have any reading comprehension abilities whatsoever?

Here's what I typed:



"I'd like to see all of the non-Adelson reporting which states that Miami voted in favor of Stanford-Cal. I'll wait."



But, hey, thanks for telling me the schools that "opposed", when I asked for the reporting on schools "in favor".

Stick to lurking. You're not good at participating.


PS, the MOMENT I actually give a **** what Pat "Breathlessly reporting on the Seventh Floor Crew while ignoring the exact same type of story in connection to Michigan" Forde writes, then that's when you can put a bullet in my head.
 
Cane6 said:
But did you hack into a large corporation and steal $0.00007 on every transaction to make yourself a millionaire?
Click to expand...
office space my stapler GIF by Maudit
 
Cane6 said:
PAC12 and ACC in a cage match to see who can sabotage itself worse

University executives think they know everything

Click to expand...



Good lord...

You know, having worked for publicly-traded companies for decades, I can tell you that the FIRST THING we do when analyzing M&A...is to run out and get a valuation from a university professor.

Never...and I mean NEVER...send an academic to do a business professional's job...
 
Advertisement
Cane6 said:
But did you hack into a large corporation and steal $0.00007 on every transaction to make yourself a millionaire?
Click to expand...
No, but I did set up a company's 401k transfers right around that time and had to carry out transactions to 5 decimal places. That was bad enough.
 
Midlo Cane Fan said:
So no one in the ACC is attractive, huh?

Click to expand...

Adding the four PAC 4 teams, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, and a San Diego State to bring the ACC to 22 teams wouldn’t be terrible if we couldn’t get out of the ACC by say 2030 (yeah yeah I know we are most likely gone by 2025).

I’d happily travel to Nola, San Diego, Memphis and Dallas for some games and those teams all seem like their making a legit effort to build up their programs.

Again, I know and want the ACC to be dead but as a worst case scenario…it’s stil a ****** option compared to the power 2. But when life gives you a **** you make a **** sandwich
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Brilliant.

You "really doubt" it's a simple majority. Even though that is the state of NC law on the matter. Even though the Constitution DOES specify a super-majority for new membership, but does NOT do so for a vote to dissolve.

"That's not how these associations work". Yeah, it actually is.

"It's a super majority to amend and I think likely that to dissolve". Show your evidence.

"Never seen any good reporting either way". More dopiness. If a contract is silent as to a term, you look to state law and precedent. What "good reporting" do you need to acknowledge that there is NOT a super-majority required to dissolve the association? I mean, besides your "doubt" and "thoughts".

I do think it's amazing that you cite "the ACC money...now". How cute. And then you act like it would be "about the same if F$U Clemson leave". Yeah? On what planet? It was one thing when Nebraska/Mizzou left the Big 12, but it's quite different when the two best teams (Texas/Oklahoma) leave. Nobody is going to pay the Big 12 "Texas/Oklahoma" money when Texas/Oklahoma are in the SEC. Same thing with F$U/Clemson.

Exit fees. Hilarious. Soooo...getting LESS THAN 10 MILLION per school (on a one-time basis) is going to fix a $25-30M ANNUAL shortfall (compared to Power 2 schools) that is expected to grow even more over the life of the upcoming contracts? Sure, makes a helluva lot of sense. We'll be able to put $18 million of one-time band-aids on a $25-30M annual deficit. Brilliant.

ESPN "needs late night programming"? What, off of TWO teams? Give it a rest, you have veered into the "making stuff up" category now. At least you acknowlege that your garbage post is "guess" and "speculation".

Yes, the ACC is going to put "academics" over money. Just like the Big 10 is doing, by prioritizing two non-AAU schools as their 1A/1B choices in the southeast. ******* hilarious.

Now...don't go changing your username in the next few months. I'm going to be curious to see what new nonsense you invent then.

But, yeah...a dozen ACC schools are going to accept a 13-year slow death-sentence from growing revenue shortfalls that START at $25-30M per year.

Because "GOR".

And because "academics".

Because "super majority".

Because "IRREVOCABLE".

Yep, I'm sure you will be proven right in 2036.
Click to expand...
“If a contract is silent as to a term, you look to state law and precedent...”

👍
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
I have a question. Do you understand the English language? Do you have any reading comprehension abilities whatsoever?

Here's what I typed:



"I'd like to see all of the non-Adelson reporting which states that Miami voted in favor of Stanford-Cal. I'll wait."



But, hey, thanks for telling me the schools that "opposed", when I asked for the reporting on schools "in favor".

Stick to lurking. You're not good at participating.


PS, the MOMENT I actually give a **** what Pat "Breathlessly reporting on the Seventh Floor Crew while ignoring the exact same type of story in connection to Michigan" Forde writes, then that's when you can put a bullet in my head.
Click to expand...
I don’t care what Pat Forde says either but it shows there’s similar reporting out there. One has to at least wonder why Miami wasn’t listed by espn or SI as one of the four schools opposed to Cal and Stanford joining.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I have a question. Do you understand the English language? Do you have any reading comprehension abilities whatsoever?

Here's what I typed:



"I'd like to see all of the non-Adelson reporting which states that Miami voted in favor of Stanford-Cal. I'll wait."



But, hey, thanks for telling me the schools that "opposed", when I asked for the reporting on schools "in favor".

Stick to lurking. You're not good at participating.


PS, the MOMENT I actually give a **** what Pat "Breathlessly reporting on the Seventh Floor Crew while ignoring the exact same type of story in connection to Michigan" Forde writes, then that's when you can put a bullet in my head.
Click to expand...
Please show me all the reporting out there saying Miami opposed Stanford and Cal joining?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top